Gujarat High Court
General Manager vs Thakor Sovanji Chaturji & on 19 June, 2013
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
GENERAL MANAGER....Appellant(s)V/STHAKOR SOVANJI CHATURJI C/FA/950/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 950 of 2013 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 951 of 2013 TO FIRST APPEAL NO. 956 of 2013 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4326 of 2013 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 950 of 2013 TO CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4332 of 2013 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 956 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ GENERAL MANAGER....Appellant(s) Versus THAKOR SOVANJI CHATURJI & 1....Defendant(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR AJAY R MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1 2 MR A V PRAJAPATI for Respondent No.1 MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP FOR STATE ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 19/06/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) As all appeals arise from the common judgement and award passed by the Reference Court, they are being considered simultaneously.
All the appears are directed against the judgement and award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.270/2011 to 276/2011, whereby the Reference Court has award additional compensation at Rs.182/- per sq. mtrs., plus statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).
The short facts of the case are that for the project of ONGC the lands located at Village Linch, Taluka Mehsana were to be acquired under the Act. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 24.1.2006. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 12.1.2007. Thereafter, the award was declared under Section 11 of the Act on 30.7.2008 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.9.50/- per sq. mtrs. As the original land owner/claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised the dispute under Section 18 of the Act and demanded compensation at Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtrs. Such disputes were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication for Land Reference Case No.270/2011 to 276/2011. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the Reference, passed the above referred judgement and award. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.
We have heard Mr.Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr.Prajapati, learned Counsel for the respective original claimants and Mr.Jayswal, learned AGP for respondent No.2.
All appeals are heard for final disposal. We have considered the relevant documents forming part of the record of the Reference Court, which have been made available by the learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing. We have considered the judgement and reasons recorded by the Reference Court.
It appears that the issue arises for consideration in the present matter as such could be said as covered by the decision of this Court in First Appeal No.927/2013 and allied matters, wherein for the land located at Village Dangarva, the valuation report of the Valuation Committee for allotment of the land at the very village was considered and thereafter the market price was assessed. We may record in the above referred appeals, this Court had observed thus:-
6. The perusal of the valuation report dated 15.5.2001 for the valuation of the land at Village Dangarva, which is at Item No.5 of the Valuation Report shows that the land was to be allotted by the State Government to the Central Government for construction of Telephone Exchange at Staff Quarters. It further shows that after considering the location of the land, the valuation was arrived at Rs.588/- per sq. mtrs., and thereafter since it was to be used for commercial purpose, 30% is added and the market value was assessed at Rs.780/-
per sq. mtrs. It further shows that the land was bearing Survey No.3 in village site, which was being used for dumping of waste. Therefore, the other location is considered by the Valuation Committee for the purpose of valuation. The said valuation report has come in the evidence of the claimant as well as the officer of the Valuation Department, who was also examined. On the aspects of valuation of the land made for allotment to the Central Government, there is no evidence to the contrary. Under these circumstances, the reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the valuation report could not be said to be erroneous. It may be recorded that this Court, in its decision in the case of State of Gujarat (supra), at paragraphs 21 to 28 had observed as under:-
21.In any welfare State, Government cannot have a dual stand for the same subject. If the land of a citizen is to be acquired, Government has to pay the market price of the land as per the provisions of the Act.
Government cannot contend that it shall not pay the market price, since as per the Act it is obligatory on the part of the Government or the acquiring Body to pay the market price as per the provisions of the Act. Similarly when the Government is to allot the land to the citizen or any organization, may be for private or public purpose, it has to be the market price, unless the allotment is for a specific public purpose or by way of a separate class, where a specific concession in the market price is made permissible. In any case, where the reduction of the market price for a specific rate is made permissible, such would be lesser than the market price. These cases where the concession or reduction is to be made, would not exceed the market price. Therefore, it is clear that unless the land is allotted at a concessional price, in normal circumstances when the Government is to allot the land to its citizen or to any body, the price would be the market prices to be fixed by the competent authority by the Government. Hence, we cannot countenance the stand on the part of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that if the Government is to allot the land to any citizen or a body, higher price shall be fixed as the market price, whereas if the Government is to acquire the land belonging to any citizen or any organization, it shall pay lesser price of the land. To say in other words, if the Government is to allot A land belonging to it to any citizen or to any organization, it will charge B price, but if the very A land is belonging to the citizen and the Government is to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, the Government shall pay price lesser than the B price to the citizen or the organization. If such is permitted, in our view, it would result into discriminatory and arbitrary approach on the part of the State Government, which cannot be countenanced by the constitutional Court in a welfare State. As observed earlier, if the very A land is acquired belonging to the citizen by the Government, the Government would be required to pay the price, in any case, not less than B price and to be more specific, Government would be required to pay the price, in any case, not lesser than the price fixed by it for the purpose of allotment of the land to any citizen or organization, of course, subject to the change in the nature and character of the land, if any.
22.Even if the matter is to be examined in light of the aspect as to whether the price determined by the competent authority of the Government for allotment of the government land to any citizen or organization can be said as in exercise of statutory power or authority of the statute or not, it appears that the provisions of the Land Revenue Code are clear. Section 62 under the Bombay land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') reads as under :-
Section
62. Unoccupied land may be granted on conditions. It shall be lawful for the Collector subject to such rules as may from time to time be made by the State Government in this behalf, to require the payment of a price for unalienated land or to sell the same by auction and to annex such conditions to the grant as he may deem fit, before permission to occupy is given under section 60. The price (if any) paid for such land shall include the price of the Government right to all trees not specially reserved under the provisions of section 40 and shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.
23.Rule 37 of Gujarat Land Revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') provides for manner of disposal of agricultural land, whereas rule 42 provides for disposal of the land for building and other purposes. Rule 37 and Rule 42 read as under:-
37.
Survey numbers how to be disposed of.-
(1)Any unoccupied survey number not assigned for any special purpose may, at the Collector's discretion, be granted for agricultural purposes to such person as the Collector deems fit, either upon payment of a price fixed by the collector, or without charge, or may be put up to public auction and sold subject to his confirmation to the highest bidder.
(2)In the case of such grants an agreement in Form F shall ordinarily be taken from the person intending to become the occupant.
(3)When the land is granted on inalienable tenure the clause specified in Form I shall be added to the agreement. (4) When the land is granted on impartible tenure an agreement in Form F(1), and, when it is also granted in alienable tenure an agreement in Form I(1), shall ordinarily be taken from the person intending to become the occupant.
(5)The declaration below the agreement shall be subscribed by at least one respectable witness and by the patel and village accountant of the village in which the land is situate.
42. Disposal of land for holding and other purposes.-
Unoccupied land required of suitable for building sites or other nonagricultural purpose shall ordinarily be sold after being laid out in suitable plots by action to the highest bidder whenever the Collector is of opinion that there is a demand for land for any such purpose, but the Collector may in his discretion, dispose of such land by private arrangement, either upon payment of a price fixed by him or without charge, as he deems fit.
24.The aforesaid shows that as per Rule 37 an unoccupied land can be granted for agricultural purpose to any person by the Collector and such grant of the land can be either upon the price fixed by the Collector or by public auction and can be without charge also. In the same manner Rule 42 provides that the land can be allotted for non-agricultural purpose by the Collector to the highest bidder unless the Collector in his discretion decides to dispose of the land by private arrangement, either upon the price fixed by him or without charge.
25.In the present matters, we are not required to examine the aspect of exercise of the powers by the Collector without charge or by private negotiation for disposal of the land for agricultural or non-agricultural purpose, therefore, no discussion is required on the said aspect, but the in the present matter, the aspect of power with the Collector for disposal of the land upon the payment of the price to be fixed by him (other than concessional charge) is to be taken into consideration. If the collector has to allot the land as per Section 62 read with Rule 37 or Rule 42 of the Rules, the same shall be at the price to be fixed by him. He has to determine the price of such land before taking decision for allotment of the land. In the case of Ghunshabhai Govindbhai Pancholi v State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 1995(1) GLH, 792, the question arose for consideration about the fixation of the price by the Collector under Section 62 of the code read with Rule 37 of the rules and this Court observed that the Collector has the authority to fix the price to be paid for the land which he grants to a person for agricultural purpose and such price has to be fair, reasonable and just and should not be arbitrary or whimsical and he has also to take into consideration the submissions or the material, which may be submitted by the allottee or the person, who is to be allotted the land. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that when a price is fixed by the Collector for allotment of the land to any citizen or organization under the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with the Rules, such action for fixation of the price is not in exercise of the statutory powers. Be it noted that the Collector has to exercise the power subject to general orders of the State Government for the mode and manner of fixation of the valuation and the Collector, therefore, while fixing the market price has to take into consideration the view of an expert body, which is the Valuation Committee and thereafter to take final decision. Therefore, it is not a matter where the exercise of the power by the Collector is not in discharge of the statutory function for fixation of the market price. At this stage, it may also be recorded that even under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, more particularly Section 43 of the said Act, while granting permission to transfer the land, which is held by the agriculturist, who was originally allotted the land as agricultural tenant under the said Act, has to exercise the power for grant of permission upon payment of the premium. At the time when the premium is to be fixed the marked price of the land is to be ascertained by the Valuation Committee of the Government and the opinion is to be considered by the Collector of the valuation made. Therefore, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the valuation made by the Valuation Committee of the Government of the nearby land for the purpose of allotment of the land to any citizen by the Collector cannot be taken into consideration by the Reference Court. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned Addl. Government Pleader deserves to be rejected, therefore, rejected.
26.The reliance placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. And Others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC, 595; in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Eluru and Ors. v. Jasti Rohini (Smt.)and Anr., reported in 1995(1) SCC, 717, are for the view that the fixation of the valuation in the valuation register for the stamp Act purpose cannot form as a basis for determination of the market value. Such is not the fact situation in the present case.
27.The Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 15 SCC, 769 on the contrary at paragraph 44 has observed as under:-
44.
One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committee, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by the statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
28.In the present case, the valuation has been made by the Valuation Committee for giving opinion to the District Collector in exercise of the statutory power. The Valuation Committee is comprising of the expert body in the field of valuation, including the District Collector himself, T.P. Authority, etc. Therefore, there is no reason why the valuation made by the Valuation Committee of the Government for fixation of the price for allotment of the land at the very village by way of sale instance or price fixed by the Government for allotment of a land to an organization should not be taken into consideration.
7. In view of the aforesaid observation, the reliance placed by the learned Judge upon the report of the valuation committee for allotment of the land could be said as on a valid ground.
8. It may be recorded that on behalf of the respondents, no evidence was produced to the contrary. The land in question is located in the same village. It is true that the land, which came to be considered by the Valuation Committee was located in the village site, whereas the lands in question are located outside the village site, but within the revenue limits of the very village. It is also true that the specific evidence has not come on record for showing distance of the land at Survey No.3, which was allotted for Telephone Exchange and Staff Quarters and the land under acquisition, but the pertinent aspect is that in the said valuation report, the market price assessed in the year 2001 was at Rs.780/-, since the land was to be used for commercial purpose. The learned Judge of the Reference Court has not taken the basis of Rs.780/- as the market price, but has taken into consideration Rs.588/- as the market price. The aforesaid would show that the addition made towards commercial use of the land has been already excluded by the Reference Court. Further, the land, which was subject matter before the valuation committee was admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs., whereas the lands under acquisition are ranging from 80 sq. mtrs., to 5675 sq. mtrs., for different parcels of lands. In our view, the deduction of 10% was reasonable even if the size of the lands before the valuation committee and lands under acquisition were to be considered. Further, towards N.A. Factor, 30% is already considered as per the view taken by this Court in the above referred decision in the case of State of Gujarat (supra).
Under these circumstances, we find that the deduction of 40% is rightly considered by the Reference Court.
9. The attempt to contend that the distance between two lands had not come on record or that the location of the lands was also not made comparable cannot be countenanced for two reasons; one is that no evidence whatsoever was led on behalf of the respondent for showing the market value of the land, otherwise than as was assessed by the valuation committee on behalf of the respondent. Even in the cross-examination of the claimant or the officer of the Town Planning Department, no such question is put to the witness to show that the location was not comparable or otherwise. Therefore, we find that such contention cannot be accepted.
In our view, as such the learned Judge has decided the matter based on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat (supra) and hence, the approach of the learned Judge, even otherwise also, was if to follow the judgement of this Court, the same cannot be said to be erroneous.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, if the facts of the present case are further examined, it appears from the perusal of the reasons recorded by the Reference Court that for the allotment of the land at the very village, Linch the land admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs., bearing Survey No.1485 was to be allotted for water works in the year 2001 and for the assessment of the market value, the issue was referred to the valuation committee. The valuation committee had assessed the market value of the land at Rs.225/- per sq. mtrs., and thereafter 30% was added towards commercial use of the land and ultimate market value was assessed at Rs.325/- per sq. mtrs. It also appears from the reasons recorded by the Reference Court that Rs.220/- was considered as the basis for the purpose of assessment of the market value of the land in question, instead of Rs.325/- like in the above referred matter. After considering the same, 40% of the amount is deducted and the market value is assessed at Rs.132/- per sq. mtrs., for the land in question on 31.7.2001. Thereafter, the Reference Court has considered the appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum, since the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was on 24.1.2006 and accordingly, the market value is arrived at Rs.191.40 per sq. mtrs. After deduction of the amount already awarded as the compensation of Rs.9.50 per sq. mtrs., the net amount as was of Rs.181.90 and having been rounded off, the additional compensation is awarded at Rs.182/- per sq. mtrs. In our view, there is no difference in the application of principles. Further, as was considered in the earlier matter in First Appeal No.927/2013 and allied matters, in the present case also there was no evidence led on behalf of the original respondent appellant herein before the Reference Court. Since, the contentions are raised of the same type and there is no difference of facts, which may lead the Court to take different view, we find that it cannot be said that the Reference Court has committed error in assessing the market value of the land in question. The other benefits granted by the Reference Court are by way of statutory benefits and no interference is called for.
8. Under these circumstances, all appeals are meritless and, therefore, dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
9. In view of the above order passed in the main appeals, the civil applications would not survive and shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) vinod Page 15 of 15